Hiya, I'll try to clear up all the marketing BS that's being shown in the specs and give you an honest breakdown depending on your needs. I'll only show things that are different so if there's anything I don't talk about, it's because both laptops have the exact same feature making it irrelevant for comparison.
I.
CPU: Intel i3-2330M
Graphics Card: NONE
Embedded Graphics Processor: Intel HD 3000
Battery: 6-cell Lithium-Ion
II.
CPU: AMD A8-3500M
Graphics Card: ATi Radeon HD 6750M
Embedded Graphics: ATi Radeon HD 6620G
Battery: 9-cell Lithium-Ion
Ok as we see here, at a glance to the layman, they both look more or less the same but there are some large differences between them. We'll start with pure compute power (CPU speed). The Intel i3-2330M is definitely the faster of the two. The source I usually use is notebookcheck.net but they don't specifically have the i3-2330M listed so I'll do some math. Since the architecture of the i3-2330M is the same as that of the 2310M and 2350M, one can reasonably expect that it will perform exactly in the middle between the two, especially considering they all both have the same cache. Therefore, I'll take benchmark scores, add them up and divide by the number of benchmarks to get the average benchmark score across the board to better approximate real-world use:
i3-2350M@2.3GHz -> (2731.2+3031.5+6787+2.2+17+912+23.8+743.7)/8=1781.05 (Average total benchmark score)
i3-2310M@2.1GHz -> (2502.2+2754.6+6163.3+2+18.3+969.2+26+807)/8=1655.33 (Average total benchmark score)
Since we can safely assume that the i3-2330M@2.2GHz will have the same cache and architecture, finding its Average total benchmark score would logically be the average of the above 2 scores. Therefore:
i3-2330M@2.2GHz -> (1781.05+1655.3)/2=1718.19 (Average total benchmark score)
The A8-3500M is MUCH simpler because notebookcheck.net lists it already so:
A8-3500M@1.5/2.4GHz(Turbo) -> (2244.5+1576.2+5148.3+1.9+48.5+1777.5+24.1+758.7)/8=1447.46
To find the difference: 1718.19/1447.46*100=119%
Therefore, the i3-2330M is 19% faster than the A8-3500M on average.
Now that we know that the Intel CPU is faster, one would think that the Intel setup is the better choice, right? Not necessarily. This is because a computer's overall speed and experience are also greatly determined by their graphics processor, especially in this day and age.
I'll use the same method for the GPUs that I used for the CPUs to get a fair comparison, the only issue is that the AMD setup actually has 2 GPUs, one embedded and one discrete (a mobile card). Discrete GPUs are almost always faster than embedded so we'll have to see what happens here. I'll just list them separately because there's no way to know how their hybrid CrossfireX will scale in every situation, if at all:
Intel HD 3000 -> (12536.4+8597.6+6369.6+3541.6+1389.9)/5=6487.02 (Average total benchmark score)
ATi HD 6620G -> (15023+11961.7+7365+3595.5+1535)/5=7896.04 (Average total benchmark score)
7896.04/6487.02*100=122%
Therefore, the ATi Mobility Radeon HD 6620G is 22% faster than the A8-3500M on average.
We can see that the AMD setup has the upper hand in graphics computation but there's actually more than that. The 6620G supports DirectX11, the HD 3000 does not. There is also the issue of drivers and compatibility. ATi has a flawless record of game support while Intel GPUs emphatically do not. Since there's no way of testing this, it can simply be called symantics. The A8's embedded processor is 22% faster than the i3's. However, there is a HUGE part of this equation that has yet to be addressed. The AMD setup ALSO has the ATi Mobility Radeon HD 6750M which is a discrete mobile graphics card and is most likely an absolute monster when compared to either of the embedded GPUs. Here's the lowdown:
ATi HD 6750M -> (43578+21813+15010.5+8843.4+4545.2)/5=18758.02
The difference between the HD 6750M and the HD 3000:
18758.02/6487.02*100=289%
Yes, that is correct, the 6750M has almost TRIPLE the power of the HD 3000. Basically, this means that the two aren't even comparable one on one. In this case, you also have the embedded 6620G which is 22% faster than the HD 3000 all by itself. These points alone make the AMD setup by far the better buy. Here's the explanation for that:
CPUs and GPUs are entirely different animals. As long as a CPU has the correct instruction set like x86(32-bit) or x64(64-bit), to run a program, the program WILL RUN, but it may run slow. For instance, an old Pentium-III can run ANY 32-bit Windows application, it just may take forever depending on the application itself and OS installed. GPUs don't work that way. Not only is a specific instruction set needed (DX9,10,11), there is also the fact that unlike the CPU which will just run slower, if the GPU isn't powerful enough for a specific application (games, HD multimedia), the application WILL NOT RUN AT ALL. Those that will run will be affected by the same speed reduction as seen with CPUs. In this case, while the A8-3500M is a bit slower than the i3-2330M, the graphics power of the AMD setup more than outweigh the CPU power of the Intel setup. The reason for this is that for 90% of applications, 19% won't even be a noticeable difference. For instance, if it takes 5 seconds to load a program with the A8, it will take 4 seconds to load it with the i3. Would you be able to tell? I wouldn't. It's rare that I find that a program even takes 5 seconds to load, they all tend to load much faster than that making the difference even more slight (My laptop IS an A8-3500M but I don't have the HD 6750M, I just have the 6620G embedded). In the case of making a zip file for instance, it might take 20 seconds on the A8 and 16-17 seconds on the i3. Again, nothing to scream about. On the other hand, having more or less triple the graphics processing power would literally mean that a game which would not even load at minimum settings on the HD 3000 would not only load on the HD 6620G/HD 6750M combination, but it would most likely have playable frame-rates at medium settings. That makes the AMD setup by far the more versatile choice. The last issue that I can address is that of battery life. Simply put, the A8 and the i3 have the exact same TDP envelope at 35W. The A8's battery life can be significantly lessened by use of the 6750M but the technology in a Llano-based laptop with a discrete card is such that the card does not need to be used all the time and can be turned off so that only the 6620G is used. This isn't much of a performance drawback relative to the HD 3000 because the HD 3000 is all you get with the Intel setup and the 6620G alone is still 22% faster. The biggest difference between these two is that the AMD setup has a 9-cell battery instead of the 6-cell like the Intel. What that essentially means is that while battery life is listed in mAh (milliAmp hours) and the number of cells don't affect overall battery life, the 9-cell can run more devices while keeping the same number of hours. Reducing the load won't make the battery last longer, but increasing it won't make it run out faster either. In this case, the 9-cell, while possibly having the same number of mAh as the 6-cell and therefore having the same overall battery life, will have that same amount of run-time even when using the AMD's HD 6750M for the full power of the two ATi graphics engines. I can't seem to find battery life comparisons between the i3-2330M and the A8-3500M so I'm treating them as though they were too close to call because for some weird reason, tomshardware decided to compare the A8-3500M against the i5-2520M (which is retarded since they're not in the same class and the i5 uses far more power). I know that this has been very long-winded but unfortunately, your lack of information on what you want this laptop for has made it necessary to cover all the bases.
In my opinion, the versatility and graphics capability of the AMD setup far outweigh the processing power advantage of the Intel setup. I would choose the A8-3500M over the i3-2330M setup 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Again, I have a Llano-based A8-3500M laptop and I love it. Even though I only have the embedded 6620G, I can still play Skyrim on low settings smoothly. What does Skyrim on a PC look like at low settings? Essentially what it looks like on a PS3.
All info sourced from http
/notebookcheck.net
Facebook
Twitter